Discussion Title: The US should adopt a carbon fee and dividend plan to address the primary cause of climate change.

1. The US should adopt a carbon fee and dividend plan to address the primary cause of climate change.
1.1. Con: A carbon fee and dividend plan isn't enough.
1.1.1. Pro: We need a comprehensive Green New Deal
1.1.2. Con: A carbon fee and dividend plan could be part of a broader solution.
1.1.3. Pro: Solutions should focus on corporations instead of individuals because corporations are the main source of the problem
1.1.4. Pro: Solutions need to help low income communities deal with the negative effects of climate change
1.2. Pro: It is favorable that this is not a regressive tax.
1.3. Con: There is no distinction made between man made climate change and natural climate change
1.3.1. Con: Many of the causes of climate change today also limits the natural system to rebound and reverse the trend \(i.e. deforestation\).
1.4. Pro: Even if climate change models are wrong, this initiative would decrease other pollutants which is helpful.
1.5. Con: Peak energy consumption and air pollution occurred 40 years ago and have reduced by 70%.
1.5.1. Con: The pollutant we have not controlled is C02 which continues to increase.
1.5.2. Con: The statement is not true. energy consumption has only increased. [ourworldindata.org](https://ourworldindata.org/energy)
1.6. Con: Current lower Co2 energy alternatives aren't viable
1.6.1. Pro: Wind power is unreliable and will result in blackouts
1.6.2. Pro: Some alternative energy sources produce more power at night, when there is less demand for power
1.6.3. Pro: Battery technology is a bottleneck on the effectiveness of alternative energy sources like wind and solar
1.6.4. Con: That is because there has been enough of a cash incentive for the change. Obama era\\EU regulations to push for lower-emission cars has led to multiple companies the initiative to all-electric cars \(incentive first solution second is how humans operate\).
1.6.5. Con: Not true as cost of alternative energy sources is now [cheaper than fossil fuels](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/#3b39a655a6b2).
1.7. Pro: A carbon fee and dividend plan is the most effective single policy to address climate change
1.7.1. Pro: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is proposed legislation that would effectively implement a carbon fee and dividend plan
1.7.2. Pro: The carbon fee and dividend plans provides companies with an [economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.](https://citizensclimatelobby.uk/carbon-fee-dividend/)
1.8. Con: We shouldn't make such a dramatic change based on unproven science
1.8.1. Con: Climate change is real, man made, and urgent.
1.8.1.1. Con: It is unlikely that people affect the weather and it is arrogant to think so. God is more powerful.
1.8.1.2. Pro: Personal experience as a science teacher
1.8.1.3. Pro: Future generations want a livable planet
1.8.1.4. Pro: Prof. Katharine Hayhoe is an example of science-based, peer-reviewed and highly validated findings showing that earth has warmed and is likely caused by humans.
1.8.1.5. Con: Leading experts at the University of Alabama Huntsville say there is nothing to this
1.8.1.6. Pro: Will not cause extinction, but will cause significant damage, and damage will increase the longer we wait to take action
1.8.1.7. Con: UN's scientific report doesn't support conclusion of man-made climate change
1.8.1.8. Pro: Anti climate change arguments are problematic.
1.8.1.8.1. Pro: Some who oppose climate change also say cigarettes aren't damaging and therefore aren't trustworthy sources.
1.8.1.8.2. Pro: Many anti climate change voices are [funded by fossil fuel companies](https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action).
1.8.1.8.3. Pro: [Skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com) debunks anti-climate change arguments
1.8.1.9. Con: The 97% consensus cited refers to those who say there will be an increase in temperature, NOT that it will be significant. 97% includes "deniers".
1.8.1.9.1. Pro: Some who say climate change is real and man made cite studies that scientists are "97% certain" however this should not be believed because that is not the type of language scientists use to communicate findings and the claim is distorted
1.8.1.10. Con: Computer modeling indicates climate change will either have a minimal impact or an impossibly catastrophic impact so there's no reason to do anything.
1.8.1.11. Pro: Climate change is already evident in places like [Indonesia​](https://wwf.panda.org/?118081/indonesia-at-risk-climate-change-threatens-people-and-nature).
1.8.1.12. Con: Science publications have a policy of not accepting studies that disagree with climate which distorts data on published study positions.
1.8.1.13. Pro: The atmosphere is a closed system and if we pump tons of Co2 into it, it will cause [changes](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/).
1.8.1.13.1. Pro: Population and consumption per capita both increase climate change and have both grown tremendously since the 1900's.
1.8.1.13.1.1. Con: Population growth isn't a sufficient biomass to increase climate change.
1.8.1.14. Pro: Trustworthy governmental and scientific authorities agree
1.8.1.14.1. Pro: DOD agrees
1.8.1.14.2. Pro: International Panel agrees
1.8.1.14.3. Pro: EPA agrees
1.8.1.15. Con: Past projections have not come true
1.8.1.15.1. Pro: NASA has said the earth is warming and cooling
1.8.1.15.2. Pro: In the 70's scientists were saying the earth was going to freeze and they were wrong.
1.8.1.16. Pro: Personal expertise as a Chief Scientist for Air Force and work on Nuclear Winter modeling.
1.8.1.17. Con: Al Gore is not trustworthy because he profited from climate change ideas
1.8.1.17.1. Con: The science was evident before Al Gore.
1.8.1.17.2. Con: Arguments that entities are bought off to say climate change is real aren't persuasive
1.8.1.17.2.1. Pro: Bill Gates doesn't need the money
1.8.1.18. Pro: Climate change [disproportionately affects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_poverty) the economically disadvantaged.
1.8.1.18.1. Pro: Economically disadvantaged people have less so when they lose something it's harder to come back.
1.9. Con: This plan requires taxes and larger government, both of which should be avoided.
1.9.1. Pro: A much larger percentage of dollars collected from the fee will go to a government black hole due to fraud, waste, and abuse than presumed by proponents of the plan
1.9.1.1. Con: Only 5% will be lost to admin costs
1.9.1.1.1. Con: This is not believable
1.9.1.2. Con: Medicare and Medicaid demonstrate the government can efficiently administer complex programs
1.9.2. Pro: Higher taxes will hurt the economy and you shouldn't assume the dividend will counteract that
1.9.3. Pro: Personal Experience
1.9.4. Pro: EPA has gone too far. For example - they require setting house at 83 degrees which is bad for older people.
1.9.5. Pro: Government interventions takes from one and gives to another, creating winners and losers.
1.9.6. Pro: Business has already done everything asked of it, and more regulation would go too far
1.10. Con: The US can't address climate change by itself.
1.10.1. Pro: US is only 15% of emissions.
1.10.2. Pro: China won't do anything to address climate change until 2030.
1.10.2.1. Con: We should do more than China because we have been polluting longer.
1.10.2.1.1. Con: Even though the US has been polluting for longer, China's CO2 emissions are [more than that of the US and EU combined](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/).
1.10.2.2. Con: Acting on climate change should not be dependent on another country acting.
1.10.2.3. Pro: China is the [world's top shipping nation](https://safety4sea.com/china-is-the-worlds-top-shipping-nation-report-says/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=8d97f35c8e3d81439e3aa5985c525993dbcdd424-1590002760-0-Aat5hmmXIs83hn-bX1JFmhPPQ3-xR34cifTOsfqf40ZGx1DVHUV8b2yjkIGj8jshMqfgMfbFY6Yyqj7eyAdr1sZOXHtdFKQj_35SZ-ssQlK4FM2pr3cBpBIgqveAV5T5AkLZfqPeAOehLlG9Skjrl68syRU-nUHemYyb_R_GeBIcVoZE3iTSB5UVZ3o9m07xWCmPQNiKsMs3zzAKwcDghPIFr6XjoV52tnR-h9Or_WSjoBiXWxO__Zkiu9r9cozmVO9mTUI8pppchFTx2v7LxYfXPRbHV2K7jjFWG0rfqwdk_djr2U-8rNicfqHuKvNpHiUzVSu-sJrm9WV5NZCywVY), and the agency overseeing shipping at the UN doesn't intend to publish a plan to protect the climate until [2023](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/shipping-industry-postpones-climate-plan-until-2023-20831).
1.10.3. Con: This is reason to support global effort like the Paris Climate Accords, not a reason to oppose this plan
1.10.4. Con: The US is a major global player and there are benefits to being a global leader
1.11. Con: People don't want climate change policies like these.
1.11.1. Con: [Economists](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/#593d7d594338) favor carbon taxes. The levies, they say, would create market incentives for people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and, more important, encourage the development of new “clean” technology.
1.11.2. Pro: When [France](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/#593d7d594338) attempted to enforce carbon taxes, the result were massive revolts. This went beyond the tax issue, the beleaguered Macron had to agree to suspend the new energy taxes for six months.
1.11.3. Con: In the US, on [the state level](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/#593d7d594338), at least, voters seem OK with the idea of raising gas taxes to finance roads or other public infrastructure.
1.11.4. Pro: Canadian politics as an example
1.11.4.1. Pro: Provinces of [Manitoba and Saskatchewan](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/12/27/economists-love-carbon-taxes-voters-dont/#593d7d594338) either repealed or refused to enact their own carbon taxes.
1.12. Con: Superior alternatives exist
1.12.1. Con: These alternatives do not place liability on corporations, who are a [major cause of climate change](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change).
1.12.1.1. Pro: Just 100 companies are responsible for [71%](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change) of global CO2 emissions.
1.12.2. Pro: More Nuclear
1.12.3. Pro: Reducing our meat consumption can help save the environment.
1.12.3.1. Pro: The consumption of meat accounts for [15%](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/eating-less-meat-essential-to-curb-climate-change-says-report) of total global emissions. This can be reduced if humans consume less meat or switch to a [carbon free diet](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49238749).
1.12.4. Pro: Planting more trees can help reduce climate change.
1.12.4.1. Con: Planting trees is good but more is necessary.
1.12.4.2. Pro: Planting trees can help reduce atmospheric carbon by [25%](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/) in our environment.
1.12.5. Pro: American Nobel Prize for technology innovation
1.13. Pro: -> See 1.8.1.
1.14. Pro: It is favorable that the plan is bi-partisan
1.14.1. Pro: There is backlash against Canadian carbon pricing policies because the policies were not bi-partisan
1.15. Pro: It is favorable that the plan is market focused
1.15.1. Pro: The government gives large subsidies for fossil fuels, which is an anti-market government intervention and increases climate change
1.15.1.1. Pro: Offshore exploration subsidies are an example of fossil fuel subsidies
1.15.2. Pro: The benefit of the dividend is offset by increased prices of products purchased and the dividend won't be enough $ to incentivize using more Co2 to receive more $.
1.16. Pro: It is favorable that the money collected from the fee goes back to the people as a dividend instead of to the government
1.16.1. Pro: The Australian policy isn't working because they forgot about returning the money to the people.
1.16.2. Con: The IRS might not give back the money
1.16.3. Con: Low income people might not receive the dividend if it is administered through the tax system because they don't pay taxes
1.17. Pro: It risks more EPA regulations without this plan as a solution, which would be bad.
1.17.1. Pro: The [Clean Water Act](https://voxeu.org/article/clean-water-rule-and-economic-research-us-water-pollution-regulation) is an example of EPA over-regulation.
1.17.1.1. Pro: [en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act)
1.18. Con: Some damages attributed to climate change are because people are building in dangerous areas too close to shore
1.18.1. Pro: [Coastal and estuarine ecosystems](http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Coastal_pollution_and_impacts) have been, and still are, heavily influenced by humans through pollution and habitat loss worldwide.
1.18.2. Con: The amount of "dangerous areas" that humans have developed has increased in part due to climate change itself expanding the reach of the "danger"; such as flooding caused by more rapid snowmelt, more extreme storms, and higher tides caused by climate change encroaching on previous non-dangerous areas. So there is an intensification effect